From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 References: <20160628083404.GI18662@hermes.click-hack.org> <57724022.8010904@sigmatek.at> <20160628091747.GK18662@hermes.click-hack.org> <57724333.6010608@sigmatek.at> <20160628092955.GL18662@hermes.click-hack.org> <577248AB.5070601@sigmatek.at> <20160628095543.GM18662@hermes.click-hack.org> <57724CFE.2050401@sigmatek.at> <20160628101957.GO18662@hermes.click-hack.org> <5772520E.8010407@sigmatek.at> <20160628103925.GP18662@hermes.click-hack.org> From: Wolfgang Netbal Message-ID: <577265AF.9080300@sigmatek.at> Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 13:55:27 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160628103925.GP18662@hermes.click-hack.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Xenomai] Performance impact after switching from 2.6.2.1 to 2.6.4 Reply-To: wolfgang.netbal@sigmatek.at List-Id: Discussions about the Xenomai project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: xenomai@xenomai.org Am 2016-06-28 um 12:39 schrieb Gilles Chanteperdrix: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 12:31:42PM +0200, Wolfgang Netbal wrote: >> >> Am 2016-06-28 um 12:19 schrieb Gilles Chanteperdrix: >> min: 10, max: 677, avg: 10.5048 -> 0.0265273 us >> >> Here are the output for Kernel 3.0.43 and Xenomai 2.6.2.1 >> >> #> ./tsc >> min: 10, max: 667, avg: 11.5755 -> 0.029231 us > Ok. So, first it confirms that the two configurations are running > the processor at the same frequency. But we seem to see a pattern, > the maxima in the case of the new kernel seems consistently higher. > Which would suggest that there is some difference in the cache. What > is the status of the two configurations with regard to the L2 cache > write allocate policy? Do you mean the configuration we checked in this request https://xenomai.org/pipermail/xenomai/2016-June/036390.html ? > Could you show us the tsc results of Xenomai > 2.6.4 with the 3.0 kernel ? >